The Doldrums Of Democracy

Many Voices, No Debate, as Senate Is Stifled on War

The fact that the Dems could not muster enough support--a mere 60 in number--to bring the non-binding resolution should have told them what most of us out here in "reality land" already knew: the non-binding resolution was a weak effort at addressing an already out-of-control administration that still knows how to stir the Dems into a going nowhere tizzy and focus the GOP enough to get them to do Bush's bidding. In the mean time, the Bush administration is free to continue thumbing its nose at Congress and the majority of Americans and the Constitution.

It also proves that the vast majority of our congress critters are less interested in producing results than appearing in the newspapers, 4-second sound bites, or 8-second video bits.

Beyond that, it proves that we lack leadership on both sides of the congressional aisles. Neither party can get past their own petty in-fighting, ego-maniacal focus on personality cults, messianic complexes or entrenched ideologies to get anything done. Our congress is in the doldrums of democracy where it is fashionable to stand up, gnash your teeth like a prophet of old, make a few condemnation speeches, but have an ulterior motive of obstruction of government, justice and principle.

But within all this meaningless drama is revealed the fact that the vast majority of politicians leading this nation lacks personal integrity, essential leadership skill, knowledge of fundamental American values, as well as not one iota of sense that our founders and framers hoped would lead to prosperity and through posterity.

All the 08 candidates are busy making campaign rounds and photo ops while the Senate and House are busy obstructing the only reasonable paths toward restoring order, discipline, principle and justice to our nation. The newest proposal, a binding resolution that places caps on troop and funding levels, is as likely to fail as did the non-binding resolution because our Senate, and eventually our House, refuse to gird their loins for the fight before them. It takes a proverbial set of balls to stand up and do what is right instead of what is politically expedient, convenient or to one's own advantage in terms of power and influence. Quite frankly, it appears that the Congress collectively lacks balls.

While I acknowledge the above statement is crude and vulgar, I was taught that there is a time and place for such vulgarities. The failure of our elected and appointed leaders to stand on constitutional principle and sound reasoning is cause to express our anger in such a vulgar manner.

Right now our congress is collectively engaging in a form of political sodomy. They are sodomizing our Constitution and creating a bastardized form of government in the name of power-brokering, influence-peddling and pocket-lining. Every single congress member is responsible for this form of sodomy and bastardization. While some are more guilty than others, the act is so repulsive, so heinous and so repugnant to our basic values and first principles, it is a wonder why we have not seen attempts to overthrow our government.

The only saving grace for Congress is that when compared to the Executive Branch, the congressional sodomization of our nation pales in contrast to the rape of liberty, justice and principle that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Gates, Attorney General Gonzalez, and those that have done the deeds ordered by these leaders have committed over the last 6 to 7 years.

But I have some alternatives that might help heal our body politic.

1. Congress needs to genuinely assess the problems created by this administration and the laws breached by this administration and start the impeachment process, and follow it all the way to the logical conclusion: a complete ousting of these bastards.

2. The military needs to realize that their oaths of office is to protect, defend and serve the Constitution and act to cause this government--congress and the administration--to cease and desist from their collective breach of the Constitution and failures in leadership.

3. We, the People, need to realize that we are being politically raped and sodomized and need to stand up against such criminal behaviors and call all of the bastards to answer for their deeds, collectively and individually.

4. All of the above.

The fact remains that we have far too many problems confronting us to be caught up in all of the competing agendas, ulterior motives, and selfish games. If our leaders cannot find the "stones" to get the job done, then we need to find our own stones and use them in a biblical manner as prescribed in Leviticus.

At a time when even President Bush acknowledges that the war in Iraq is sapping the nation’s spirit, the Senate has tied itself up in procedural knots rather than engage in a debate on Iraq policy.

Given the influence that voter frustration with Iraq had on the November elections, the national unease with the mounting human and financial costs, and the raw passion on all sides, even some lawmakers say they are astounded that the buildup to the Senate fight over Mr. Bush’s proposed troop increase has produced such a letdown.

“It just floors me,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota who campaigned against the war, as the two parties pointed fingers on Tuesday. The day before, the Senate proved unable to agree on a plan to even begin debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing the administration strategy. “People in Minnesota, when they see a debate we should be having — whatever side they are on — blocked by partisan politics, they don’t like it,” Ms. Klobuchar said.

The fact that that Democrats could pull together only 49 of the 60 votes needed to break a procedural impasse on the resolution opposing Mr. Bush’s plan was a product of many competing agendas.

There was the Democratic desire to avoid getting tied up on any vote that could be perceived as undercutting United States troops or endorsing Mr. Bush’s plan. At the same time, a surprising number of Republicans showed they were not yet ready to abandon the president even though many blame him for their November election losses and worry he will hurt them again next year. Then there were the presidential ambitions of several senators who are trying to distinguish themselves from others on the issue, and have little incentive to seek common ground.

By the end of the day on Tuesday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he saw little prospect that Democrats and Republicans could reach agreement on a plan to bring the resolution to the floor. “The negotiations are over,” said Mr. Reid, who dismissed Republican efforts to force a separate vote on the war money as a ploy intended to distract the public from the matter of whether senators supported or opposed the president’s policy.

Republicans spent the day trying to counter the idea that they had been obstructionists in impeding the debate. It was a label they had successfully hung on Democrats for years, and they did not appreciate the role reversal. They said their main goal had been to ensure that the Senate could guarantee in a separate resolution that Congress would not endanger forces in the field by restricting spending in the future.

“I can’t believe that any parent, any husband, wife, son, daughter of any soldier serving in Iraq doesn’t expect the Congress to take that position,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who had made some retooled overtures to Democrats to try to break the deadlock.

But the lingering impasse forced the hand of House Democrats, who had become increasingly impatient waiting for the Senate to weigh in on the president’s troop plan. Unwilling to wait any longer, the Democratic leadership said it would set aside three days next week to deliver its own verdict on the administration strategy.

“The reason we’re going ahead is not because we don’t think the Senate will ever act,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, “but we’re not sure when the Senate is going to act.”

Democrats contend that they foisted off most of the blame for the breakdown on Republicans and were more than happy to have the fight end for now, leaving the opposition trying to explain the complex Senate rules and why Republicans had not been willing to go ahead.

“We have the high ground here,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “We have the high ground substantively. We have the high ground politically. We’re not going to give it up.”

But some Republicans suggested that the public might grow frustrated with such political crowing. “I think most Americans view this as political theater, that it is more about us than supporting the troops,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

The Senate fight also exposed a weakness for the Democrats, one that will become more pronounced as the Senate moves from its inability to take up a nonbinding resolution making a statement about administration policy to more consequential votes on war spending.

Republicans had laid a bit of a trap for Democrats, seeking a 60-vote threshold for competing resolutions on the war. They knew that the bipartisan plan by Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, did not have 60 votes. But the plan calling for no reductions in spending, written by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, was likely to get at least 60, meaning the only resolution that would have passed would have been one that essentially backed the president.

Most Democrats are not ready to begin the politically charged discussion of restricting war spending. “There isn’t a Democrat here that wants to take monies away from the troops,” Mr. Reid said.

Democrats said Republicans were simply trying to dodge the chief question at hand and if it was not the financing proposal, they would have found something else to muck up the proceedings. And there is little doubt that some Republicans are determined to save the president an embarrassing loss while others are just as determined to deny the Democrats a symbolic win.

Still, there was some evidence that the debate was moving beyond the bottled-up resolution. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a prospective Democratic presidential candidate, renewed his call to begin redeploying troops in May with a complete withdrawal of combat brigades by March 2008. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts proposed a plan to set a one-year deadline to redeploy American forces from Iraq. And pressure from outside advocacy groups intensified on Democrats to take concrete steps such as capping troop levels or blocking funds for new troops.

Ultimately, one senator said, lawmakers may discover that the rules of engagement for debating Iraq are not fully within their control.

“The reality in Iraq sets it own time limits, sets its own dimensions,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. “If it continues to be chaotic, it will accelerate calls for this vote, and calls for even more.”